Madras High Court
Jakkaiyan vs State on 8 April, 2015
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4829 of 2015
Jakkaiyan .. Petitioner
.. Vs ..
State,
rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,
Aundipatti Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.33 of 2014)
in RPR No.73 of 2014 .. Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the Order passed by the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in Cr.M.P.No.11167 of
2014 dated 02.09.2014 and further to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti to grant interim custody of 3684 Brandy
bottles to the Petitioner.
!For Petitioners : Mr.P.Senguttuarasan
^For 1st Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
- - - - -
:O R D E R
This petition has been filed to set aside the Order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in Cr.M.P.No.11167 of 2014 dated 02.09.2014 and further to direct the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti to grant interim custody of 3684 Brandy bottles to the Petitioner.
2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondents.
3.The case in Crime No.33 of 2014 has been registered against the petitioner under Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner being only a licensed bar vendor was found in possession of liquor bottles without any authorization. Accordingly, about 2684 bottles have been seized in pursuant to the case registered in Crime No.33 of 2014.
4.The petitioner filed an application before the Jurisdictional Court under 451 Cr.P.C., seeking to release the said seized materials. The petition filed was rejected on the ground that prima-facie the petitioner did not have adequate permission and there is no evidence to show that he is the owner of the same. Further, a finding has been given that it is likely that the petitioner would destroy the seized goods.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the materials without being used. He also submit that the petitioner will not dispute the factum of recovery made there from. In any case the very complaint itself is one of possessing the material without adequate permission for which the materials as such are not required since he does not dispute the factum of possession.
6.Learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that the case is pending in RPR No.73 of 2014 before learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti.
7.Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice the seized goods will have to be released to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner furnish immovable property security to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also made clear that it is not open to the petitioner to content during the trial that the materials have not been seized from him and they are not available at the relevant point of time.
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
sj
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the order of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti in Cr.M.P.No.11167 of 2014 dated 02.09.2014 is set aside. Interim custody of the seized goods shall be granted to the petitioner on his furnishing immovable property security for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the satisfaction of learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Aundipatti.
08.04.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No sj To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Aundipatti Police Station, Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.4829 of 2015